Section 194I of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.393

Section 194I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 393 (Tax to be deducted at source) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 393 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 194I is CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (330 ITR 239), cited in 147 of the 477 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 194I

CIT v. Bharti Cellular Ltd.
330 ITR 239 · 2011 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that for a service to qualify as 'fees for technical services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12 of a DTAA, direct human involvement or intervention in rendering the service is essential. This principle applies to telecommunication services like interconnect charges and roaming charges, and also to services related to software use.

Maruti Udyog v. DCIT
92 ITD 119 · 2005 · ITAT
87
citing judgments

The onus is on the revenue to establish the nexus between expenses incurred and exempt income before making a disallowance under section 14A.

Sodex SVC India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) 2(2)
92 Taxmann.com 260 · 2018 · ITAT
86
citing judgments

A statutory provision is not construed to have retrospective operation unless such a construction is explicitly stated in the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication.

Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. UOI
68 Taxmann.com 299 · 2016 · High Court
34
citing judgments

An order under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2009-10 can be passed when the TDS statement is required to be filed.

Coforge Limited v. ACIT
436 ITR 546 · 2021 · High Court
31
citing judgments

A one-time payment of lease rent, even if commuted and discounted over a long period like 90 years, is revenue in nature and therefore an allowable business expenditure. The Assessing Officer must record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A.

Rajesh Projects (India) (p.) Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax
78 Taxmann.com 263 · 2017 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An assessee is not liable for TDS default under section 201(1) on payments to NOIDA Authority for lease rents, but the interest liability under section 201(1A) may still apply if the deductee has offered such income. However, the conclusion regarding TDS default applies prospectively.

Ramkrishna Vedanta Math v. ITO
24 Taxmann.com 29 · 2012 · ITAT
26
citing judgments

Interest under section 201(1A) cannot be levied if the recipient of income has already paid the due taxes. The onus is on the revenue to prove that taxes have not been recovered from the primary liable person.

CIT v. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills
118 Taxmann 489 · 2001 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments

Interest earned on funds parked in fixed deposits is considered business income if it's intrinsically linked to the assessee's business activities.

CIT v. Shahi Export House
195 Taxmann 163 · 2010 · High Court
23
citing judgments
PCIT v. Paschim GujaratVij Company Ltd.
174 Taxmann.com 748 · 2025 · High Court
17
citing judgments

Interest on staff loans earned by an electricity company is business income, not income from other sources.

Judgments on Section 194I

Ritesh Kumar Boyed, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2327/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2327/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ritesh Kumar Boyed.................................………………………………………............Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, 2Nd Floor, Suite 213, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan: Aeapb 7186 C] Acit Circle 40...................……………………………………………....................................Respondent 3, Govt. Place, Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 18.07.2017. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealing In Auto Parts Under The Name & Style Of His Proprietary Concern M/S. Surendra Motors. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 29.09.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,77,976/-. A Survey Under Section 133A Was Carried Out In The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 25.01.2008. As Found From The Documents Impounded During The Course Of Survey, Sales Were Recorded To The Tune Of Rs. 2,46,23,315/- Whereas Sales Reflected In The Audited Profit & Loss Account Of The Assessee Were Only To The Tune Of Rs. 2,07,65,620/-. Since This Difference Of Rs. 38,57,695/- Could Not Be Explained By The Assessee

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194ISection 40Section 69C